Wednesday, June 27, 2012

I read an interesting opinion piece this morning in the left-liberal British newspaper, The Guardian, by Richard Gott, called: 'This flurry of memorials discourages deeper analysis of the cost of war'. Gott wrote on a planned memorial, in Britain, to Bomber Command, which killed hundreds of thousands of German, Belgian, French and other European civilians in their mass bombardment of the Continent during the Second World War. Gott's message was merely: 'Let's spare a thought for the victims' - which seems reasonable enough. But I was struck by the furious reaction to the article, by the Guardian readership: most of the comments in the Comments section were, 'The Germans deserved it', because of the Holocaust of the Jews, etc. The ferocity of these statements disturbed me: were they representative of the British Left? Of British liberals (who form the majority of the Guardian's readership)? Why so much hate, and so little compassion? Suppose that the Holocaust was disproved tomorrow - that a crack team of CSI-type investigators, from all the world's leading nations, went into Auschwitz and other alleged death camps, and found insufficient traces of the poison gas there (used to kill millions of people) - would that make the liberal anti-Nazis sorry for the mass bombings of Europe by Bomber Command? Would there be an imbalance, then, on the scales: instead of the Germans having gotten their 'just desserts' for the murder of the six million, the Germans would then have something owing to them - by the British, and the Americans (whose USAAF also terror-bombed Europe)... One poster even quoted the Dresden death toll, revised downward by the German government, from 100,000-200,000 to - 25,000! Another evening of the scales. (Suppose, though, someone were to lower the Holocaust death toll from six million to 304,000? Would that even things?).

The German bombing of Britain, of course, killed 65,000 British (according to John Mosier's figures), but the Allied bombardment of Germany (and Europe) killed hundreds of thousands. So the Allies paid back the Germans for their bombing of Britain - with interest.

Perhaps the posters weren't representative of the British people: they could have been Jews, even Israeli Jews (who openly revel, on the Internet, in the deaths of the enemies of 'their people' - whether these enemies be Palestinians, Germans, or the Norwegian Labour Party youth killed by Breivik); perhaps they were part of that two-million strong Indian, Pakistani and African immigrant population, brought in by Blair, who revel in the chance to stick it to the white man by proxy - gloating over the mass murder of whites in Internet forums is one way a misanthropic non-white immigrant can enjoy himself. But, of course, the crimes of the RAF and the USAAF were perpetrated by white Anglo-Saxons on their fellow whites: that's undeniable. We have to ask ourselves why.

Clearly, it wasn't because of the Holocaust. As we know, the mounds of dead skinny people in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and other camps in Germany at the end of the war, were a propaganda boon for the Allies. It was alleged, by the Allies and the Russians, that the Germans had gassed people in the German, and Poland camps, etc., and quite a few respectable military historians on the Allied side declared that the existence of the German camps justified the entire war - which is ridiculous, but symptomatic of the liberal thinking of the time. But this wasn't the Holocaust. It was only thirty years after the war that the Holocaust - the gassing and cremation of six million Jews - first entered the white Western man's consciousness. The Holocaust then became, by the 1970s, the justification, post facto, for the entire Second World War - and that includes all the depredations, wrought by the Allies and the Soviets, on the Germans. The Holocaust is, of course, based on old prophecies on the Talmud - it's Jewish religion, in essence, just as much as the Rapture is based on prophecies in the New Testament and is Christian religion. But both the Holocaust, and the German gas chambers, were very far from the minds of the RAF and the USAAF, and the men who directed them - the Roosevelts, the Churchills - during the actual war itself. So, no, the Holocaust, and the gas chambers, were not the impetus for the aerial campaign against the Germans.

It wasn't the impetus, either, for the ferocious Allied policies (particularly American) towards the Germans after the war, which led to the death, by starvation, of millions of German POWs and civilians - under a policy enforced by Eisenhower, and devised by the Jewish-Americans Morgenthau Jr. and Harry Dexter White. American soldiers burned huge piles of food in front of starving German crowds, and watched, quite casually, while hundreds of thousands of German POWs in Eisenhower's barbed-wire enclosures perished of starvation and exposure. (Death by starvation, on all sides, was common in WWII, and took the lives of millions of Russians, Greeks, Ukrainians, Dutch and others. But, while the rest of starving, post-war Europe feasted on food rations supplied by Allied largesse, the Americans withheld the German share - in order to punish them. The American mentality at the time wasn't that far removed from that of the Guardian posters).

Whites killing their fellow whites, en masse, in cold blood - that's something that's always perplexed me, whether it be the mass murder of Germans, by the Americans and the British, or Breivik's murder of his fellow Norwegians. If one is a racialist, one is not surprised when different ethnic and racial groups kill one another - like the black South Africans killings of the white Boer farmers after the end of apartheid, or the Japanese mass killing of the Chinese during the war, or the Rwandan genocide. The Czech and Polish mass murder of ethnic Germans also constitutes another instance of this - it was the culmination of hundreds of years of pent-up Slavic antipathy to the Germans in the East. But, in the Anglo-Saxon versus German case - there wasn't any significant racial difference. Both groups belonged to the same white and Western European Culture.

My opinion is that both Breivik, and America and Britain during the war, were motivated by the same purpose: to avenge the offence, by the Norwegian liberal youth and the Germans respectively, against the Jews. The Norwegian Labour Party youth had angered Breivik by 'supporting Islam' and opposing Israel, and it was fitting, then, that Breivik would carry out his outrages on the anniversary of the King David Hotel bombing in Jerusalem... As for the case of the Allies, I read this in The Desert Rats: 7th Armoured Division, 1940-1945 (Robin Neillands, Orion, 1991, pp. 16-17):

Meanwhile, with war and rumours of war in the air, men were drifting to the Colours or into the Territorial Army. One of these was Rick Hall, who owned a Morris 8 car, and therefore joined the Royal Army Service Corps, the RASC.

'I used to do a lot of cycling and in 1936 a group of us cycled all the way to Germany to try and see the Olympic Games. We didnt'get in, having no tickets, so I didn't see Jesse Owens or Hitler, but I did see a group of Nazi Brownshirts smashing a Jew's head against a wall... terrible, and I thought, "Right, one of these days this lot are going to need sorting out". I came home convinced there would be trouble, because people like that have to be stopped. I kept telling people there was going to be a war, and they kept asking me, "What are you going to do about it?". So I joined the Emergency Reserve in 1938 as a driver... I got called up on Friday, 1st September 1939... Then on Sunday I heard Chamberlain say we were at war. I then joined 10 Coy of the 2nd Echelon, 1st Heavy Armoured Brigade, and went to France'.

I like the WWII generation very much, and I like British and Australian (and even American) soldiers very much. But I shake my head at the political and moral imbecility displayed by the above British serviceman (no doubt fêted by his relatives and the British public, given all sorts of medals and Queen's birthday telegram messages, etc.). I want to say to him - and his entire generation of British: 'You brought about the most terrible war in Europe's history, after you declared war on Germany for its invasion of Poland (but not on the USSR for its invasion of Poland); you helped bring about the end of the British Empire, and handed whatever sovereignty you had to the Americans; you and the Americans laid Western Europe to waste with your bombing; you, with your invasions of France, Italy and Germany, helped the Russians win the war and seize half of Eastern Europe and Germany - and all because some Jew had his head bashed against a wall?'.

Millions of Germans were raped, ethnically cleansed, murdered, starved after the war... Over a thousand Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg, quite a few tortured by the Allies, or the Russians, into "confessing" - I'd say that this nation was 'taught a lesson' and 'sorted out'. And no small thanks to you, Mr British!

And, no doubt, if all this was brought to the attention of this particular British veteran (or others like him), he would grow perturbed and then scream, defiantly, 'But I'm glad! I'm bloody well glad of what I did!'.

Supposing that this veteran's anecdote is true - and his memory isn't playing tricks on him, retroactively (as often happens to soldiers, especially very old ones) and inventing a false memory of a noble, pre-war anti-Nazi political stance - and supposing that it is representative: then we get a good picture of the wartime Anglo-Saxon mentality. The poor little Jews were picked on, so millions of Germans and other Europeans had to pay - with their lives. The USSR invaded Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Rumania, Poland, Finland - but these acts of aggression (unlike Germany's) could be overlooked, because the USSR didn't (unlike the Germans) hold to an official state ideology of anti-Semitism. The NKVD and the Red Army bashed quite a few heads against the wall in these countries - but these heads didn't belong to Jews. That's the main thing.

The Guardian readership, the wartime Americans and British, Breivik - all dancing to the same sick, twisted tune. The British were, during the war, in a partnership - spiritual, political, ideological - with Jewry even early on (we know, now, how close Churchill was to Chaim Waizmann, the future president of Israel); then, after 1941, they were in close alliance with Roosevelt and his Jewish Brains Trust. We can see this as a sinister American-British-Jewish tripartite pact. This continues, of course, today. Anglo-Saxons like Mitt Romney and David Cameron swear to fight to the last drop of blood to defend Israel from Iranians, who now play the role of the brownshirted head-bashers.

At any rate, the wartime annihilation of the West German cities, the post-war Morgenthau Plan of punishment, the denazification of Germany, the Allied indoctrination of the German populace with war guilt, the indoctrination of Germany with weird Judaic, Talmudic Holocaust-values - was all for naught. The simple truth is that the politics of Europe, and the Middle East, are slowly reverting to where they were a hundred years ago. Germany and Turkey are becoming 'great powers' again, as they were in the days of the Ottoman Empire and the old German Second Reich. Russia is led by a Tsar figure who is autocratic, illiberal, conservative, and perpetually suspicious of the West - blaming domestic opposition to his rule on 'Western interference' - and is buttressed by the Eastern Orthodox Church and all the forces of reaction (are the Muscovite anti-Putinists, in this scenario, the new Bolsheviks and Mensheviks?). Europe, and Turkey, are still, of course, ruled by America and Israel - but that control is gradually slipping. Both Germany and Turkey are using the newfound freedom to flex their muscles - almost on the sly (looking to make sure that America isn't looking). You can't keep an old dog down, and you certainly can't keep a German down.

One thing has changed in Europe forever, though: Britain and the British Empire. The old Britain, the Britain of the men of the 7th Armoured, is forever gone. The British are being wiped out, in their own cities, by immigration - which is doing a more efficient and thorough job than Hitler's V-rockets and Luftwaffe bombers ever did.

But to return to the subject of the British Left - the British Left which reads the Guardian every day - why are they so filled (if the Comments section is anything to go by) with hate and anger?

Leftism, especially post-Soviet Leftism, relies a lot on hatred and anger. I know this from experience, as a left-liberal student in the 1990s. Reading the works of John Pilger, Noam Chomsky filled me with anger, towards the USA, the Anglo-Saxon people, the 'crimes of colonialism', of whites against the Third World. But then, the works of Chomsky and Pilger are designed to fill their young, gullible, left-wing, white readers with hatred and rage. The left-wing creature, after 1991, subsists on on a diet of pure anger against all the wrongs, the injustices, of the world.

As to why this is so: communism, for all its faults, channeled the energies of the Left into a positive direction. Communism is about building a new society, remaking the world, correcting past injustices, about moving towards a better tomorrow; but, as we know from history, communism just doesn't achieve those goals - and it kills a lot of people on the way. But at least Marxism and revolution offers a way, for the Left, out of the quandaries of capitalism and the modern Western civilisation built on the capitalist mode of production. Take away that, and you take away hope. The Left doesn't have anything to believe, so falls into nihilism...

(The curious thing is that the likes of Gott loathe the old Britain, the Britain of Empire and colonialism. This is despite the fact that the precepts of liberalism, liberal democracy and human rights - which we moderns judge the Assads and Mubaraks by - were largely the invention of the British).

Another factor is that humans are naturally inclined to aggression and barbaric impulses. We moralise though, of course, and disparage (as well we should) the impulses to kill, rape, torture and so forth. But the useful thing about anti-Nazism is that it legitimises this destructive, terrible impulses. In other words: one can revel in the bombings of Germans because they were Nazis and 'had it coming'; likewise, one can exult in the Red Army's mass rapes of German women and girls.

I've always found the case of Hoess, the wartime commandant of Auschwitz, interesting. As we know, Allied interrogators tortured him for three days until he "confessed". A torturer of the commandant of Auschwitz - what a splendid position for a sadist! Who is going to chide you, tut-tut and wave the finger at you, for torturing (and then hanging) a Nazi? Especially the commandant of Auschwitz? One can torture, and then kill, with a clean conscience...

But to return to the British: the British instinctively hate, fear, and envy the Germans - because they know, intuitively, that the Germans are tougher, smarter, stronger, than they are (and, during the war, were better-dressed). This is why the British media obsesses over the Germans and the war 24 hours a day (Germans themselves, on the other hand, seem to hardly ever pay attention to Britain). The British don't like the French much either, but they really hate the Germans.

This is tied up with British feelings of national decline. The British, and the Commonwealth, politically, ceased to exist as an independent, sovereign political entity by the 1930s - falling into the American sphere of influence utterly and irredeemably. But, to a racialist like myself, what counts is not the political decline but the racial decline - which started in the 1970s. Britain, in subsequent decades, saw a social, economic and moral decline - as evinced by the 2011 London riots, when Afro-Caribbean, Indian and white British lumpenproles linked arms and sacked and torched together, agglomerating in one multi-coloured, multi-racial mass. To the British Far Right nationalist, all of this is connected: that is, Britain, had it not joined up with America and the forces of darkness in the 1930s, had it not laid waste to Europe and abandoned its own empire, would not be in morass it is in now. That is, liberal anti-fascism is a slippery slope to modern day liberalism, multiracialism and national decline - ending in the complete destruction of British identity, and, eventually, the British people themselves. The British, in WWII, thought that they were fighting to defend Britain and the Empire - but, in reality, they were fighting to bring about Tottenham...

Are the Anglo-Saxons of Britain - and America - not paying the price for their terrible crimes against their fellow whites, the Germans, French, Italians and others? Is not this slow, silent death (of white America and white Britain) by immigration Hitler's revenge? Is it not fate...

This is a bad thing, because I - like millions of others - loved the old America and Britain. I view their passing with a deep regret. But, in the end, there's not much I, or anyone else, can do. My feelings are best summed up in the lyrics of the splendid DJ Markus Schulz trance-pop song, You Won't See Me Cry (2005):

I turn around I walk away
There's nothing else that I can say

I turn around I walk away
But you won't see me
There's nothing else that I can say
But you won't see me cry

That's my message - to the bombardiers of The Guardian and Bomber Command.

Friday, June 22, 2012

I am pleased to report that, since my post, In Praise of Neo-Stalinist Doctrinairism, things have been going well for my group. Why is this? The answer is, my understanding - of how to organise in politics - increased. As to how it increased, I'll explain presently... Before I do, though, I'll note - for the sake of other nationalists who are trying to work in a group or party - that questions of organisation, management, leadership, and so forth, are different in politics than they are in fields of human endeavour. At first sight, it seems that running a political group is like running any other organisation - e.g., a trade union, a business, a bowling club, an army, whatever. But this isn't the case. Politics operates according to laws which are unique to it. The character of a political group depends on its fundamental political philosophy, which needs to be articulated and made explicit - time and time again. That philosophy encompasses everything in a group: it not only determines the objective of a group (e.g., a 'dictatorship of the proletariat') or its relations to rival groups and ideologies, but its internal organisation as well. In other words, theory determines practice. Some groups and parties, of course, get by with very little theory: e.g., your average conservative or social democratic party, or parties like Mussolini's PNF, or the German NSDAP... Those sorts of parties run like a smooth, well-oiled machine, with very little internal dissent over policy and objectives. For newish groups in the nationalist movement, though, a great deal of theory is necessary, and, what's more, this must be articulated, made explicit, in the form of a constitution and a party program. Without clarity, internal disagreement will fester, and the group will shrivel up and die - or, most likely, split apart...

In the past few months, I have read around 15 (!) books written by communists from the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc: it's been an invaluable education, politically, ideologically, intellectually, and an experience I recommend to all my fellow nationalist intellectuals. In truth, I enjoy, these days, reading these books more than nationalist material: I learn something new, every time (even if I don't always get something useful), whereas, if one sticks to the nationalist corpus - usually, the 'New Right' and 'Conservative Revolution' authors (Schmitt, Evola, et al.), one comes to a dead halt, sooner or later... (I speak, of course, after ten years of reading these 'approved nationalist authors').

As I mentioned before, 80% of the problems in the nationalist movement come about because groups can't last for long: because of the (near-inevitable) clashes of personalities, a group falls apart in short order. This is quite unlike conventional politics. Take, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which has been around since 1935 and has been operating under tremendous state oppression. They are, at present, on the threshold of political power in Egypt: but, even supposing that the Mubarakist military strikes back, and denies them legislative and executive power - well, the Brotherhood won't be defeated. They'll simply make a tactical retreat and prepare for the next offensive. In nationalism, though, this doesn't happen: compare the Brotherhood to One Nation or the British National Party - a real 'party machine' just never really existed there. Nor were they, or any other prestigious (prestigious in the nationalist world, that is) parties ever on the threshold of 'seizing power' in the past forty years. The German NPD, for example, has been around since 1964, and is incapable of winning federal representation. (Yes, a nationalist in Germany faces a tough assignment: but it can't be tougher than Mubarak's Egypt, or Assad's Syria). As for the non-parliamentary nationalist groups, these tend to form into small, extraparliamentary grouplets (just like the radical Left) and fall apart fairly quickly (just like radical Left). I've seen a few good groups, overseas, come and go, based on a progressive, anti-capitalist ideology (influenced by the German Frei Nationalisten groups), which got off to a good start but broke up in mutual recrimination. (You know that they've broken up when you go to check their websites, and find that they're all down, and have been so for months; and you hear gossip, on the nationalist grapevine, that the group fell apart after such-and-such an internal dispute).

Why can't such groups - that is, progressive, anti-capitalist nationalist ones - stick together? I think the answer is simple: anarchism. Trotskyite and Maoist groups are heavily influenced by anarchism - hence their tendency to split and subdivide into smaller and smaller groups - and so are the anti-capitalist groups on the Far Right: the Freie Nationalisten are more or less a German nationalist version of the neo-anarchist Autonomen groups. Anarchism is prone to splitting, divisiveness, sectarianism, lack of sustained action towards socialism: anarchism, because of lack of mutual agreement on a constitution and a democratic, party-like structure, leads to hierarchy, authoritarianism and individualism (surprisingly enough). The conventional charge against Marxism is that it leads to hierarchy and a lack of democracy, whereas anarchism is free, non-hierarchical and democratic: but, in truth, it's the other way around - that's the conclusion I've drawn from the literature on the subject. At any rate, Marxist-Leninist theory - for all its many faults - provides a skeleton, a structure, for a left-wing group. Without it, left-wing groups degenerate into neo-anarchism - and end up falling apart. That's what's happening to the once-promising Occupy movement in America.

(This is the conundrum of the Left in America: they'll only get anywhere if they form a communist type party, with the old democratic centralism, Leninist discipline and the rest; but obviously, this has already been tried there a thousand times in the past hundred years. Obviously, the old Marxist-Leninism is unsatisfactory to the modern American Left, which is why it opted for the New Left in the sixties and now Occupy. But without Marxist-Leninism, the American Left can't get together even the beginnings of a disciplined offensive against American capitalism. It's a catch-22. In my opinion, the only way the American Left can break out of the vicious circle is to go back towards the old party methods of organisation, but adopt racialism, anti-Semitism and nationalism as an ideological platform and embrace the white working-class American. But that, of course, will never happen...).

So, it's the lack of Marxism which explains the failures of the nationalist groups, in Europe and elsewhere, which have adopted anti-capitalism. In the end, it gets down to the class-content of one's ideology: which class do you, as a nationalist group, represent? If you're going to be an neo-anarchist type group, you'll end up gravitating towards a representation - of the classes traditionally attracted to anarchism, viz, the lumpenproles, and the peasantry. (We don't have peasants any more in the West, of course, but we do have lumpenproles - among the the poor students and punks who live in squats and eat charity food, who are a declassé social group and who seem to make up the anarchist and Antifa formations). It's not that these types are undesirable people (they are): it's that they are not the right fit for Far Right nationalism. We have to recall the fascist parties of our forebears, the parties of Hitler, Mussolini, Mosley: the class composition was working-class - the disciplined white European working-class (particularly the German, which was extolled by Marx, Engels, Lenin). True, many of these men were indigent, out of work, in straitened circumstances - but they were still of the working-class. They didn't lower themselves by dropping out of their class, in the way that quite a few students have (here in Australia and Europe): viz, the students have renounced their petit-bourgeois origins (many Australians students come from middle-class families, as do many British students) and descended, on the rungs of the ladder, to the level of the lumpenproletariat.

This is important to nationalism, because so many of nationalists one encounters are precisely from the same class - the petit bourgeoisie. The tendency for that class - especially at the fringes of politics, i.e., at the extreme Left or Right - is to gravitate towards a freakish individualism, an excessive 'subjectivism', of 'me-firstism', where one's tastes, preferences, self, dominate over the 'objective' (that is, politics, economics, class). Nothing wrong with subjectivism and individualism, of course. But these have to be put to good use: to the pursuit, in a straight line, of an impersonal goal, which is, of course, the communist or fascist state, Marx's 'dictatorship of the proletariat', whether it be a red dictatorship or a brown dictatorship... In this regard, the amazing thing about the pre-war fascist movement in Europe was that these men and women organised themselves, in a socialist and Marxist-Leninist way, without paying attention to Marxist theory! They were influenced by Lenin, and Marx, to an incredible degree: but you will (hardly ever) find a fascist politician or intellectual quoting Lenin or Marx or Stalin in support of their positions. Which is why I define fascism as a kind of pre-reflexive Marxism: that is, a Marxism without theory, a Marxism which doesn't think of itself as Marxist...

As to why the fascists were like this... The answer is, they absorbed communism into their bloodstream, by osmosis. It was part of the air that they breathed. Soviet communism, under Lenin and then Stalinism, was a viable alternative to liberal democracy. When people of my generation think of Soviet communism, they, of course, think of the decrepit communism of the 1980s - of Brezhnev and his (soon-deceased successors) and the 'young' Gorbachev. But, back in my great-grandfather's time, Soviet communism really was something. Someone on the Far Right had to acknowledge it: one couldn't escape it, or the effects on people's lives. It was like the iPhone, or Twitter, or Facebook (all of which I despise)... We moderns - we Westerners in the year 2012 - can't understand this. Hence, we have to re-educate ourselves. We have to go through the necessary stages before we can duplicate the success of the old, European, working-man's movement of the 1920s and 1930s which was fascism. In other words, we must learn to be Marxists and socialists before we make ourselves to be fascists. Which leads to a kind of over-compensation: one has to go full-tilt to Marxist-Leninism and take on board all it has to offer - in terms of political economy, politics, philosophy. We simply can't suck in Marxism from the air and absorb it into our bloodstream, in the way that Hitler, Mussolini, Primo de Rivera did - for the simple reason that, in 2012, communism, much less a viable Stalinist, Soviet communism, is no longer with us.

So, nationalist intellectuals need to embrace Marxist theory. 'But what of all the faults in that theory?'. Well, of course there are faults; but, in the end, these don't matter. It seems that every day, on the front page of some respectable newspaper, an announcement will appear (from some respectable scientist) that the Earth isn't warming as rapidly as the environmentalists claim; or that the Earth is cooling; or that 'greenhouse gases' weren't as responsible for that warming as once thought; or that the warming isn't going to be disastrous as once throught... These scientists aren't in the pay of Big Oil, or neoliberal think-tanks, either. Despite this countervailing evidence, however, environmentalism keeps marching on its way; more and more useless, environmentalist legislation - to 'combat global warming' - will be introduced... Pretty much communism went the same way. Trenchant criticisms of Kapital, made as early as the turn of the century, had zero effect. The fact that millions starved to death in the Ukraine in the early 1930s, or in China in the early 1960s - that wasn't a disproof of Marx's theory.

(What did make a difference to Marxism was the collapse of the USSR in 1991 - and the backsliding of China after 1979. But that's a story for another day).

But to return to fascism: the difference between Bolshevik Marxism, and the socialism of the fascist kind, was not only on the national question, but on the extent to which a socialist government, a revolutionary government, should abolish property.

One can say, on this point, that the fascists were right. Perhaps the communist governments went too fast - and this is a retrospective criticism - in getting rid of property altogether; perhaps they would have survived longer, had they not been in such a rush to introduce socialist property relations... Perhaps man could be steered away from capitalist property relations towards socialist ones, but this 'steering' would take a hundred years or more. This sort of thinking, of course, is 'right-wing', even 'revisionist' and 'social democratic' of me: but the capitalist, liberal democrat and bourgeois system is still here, while the USSR isn't. So, who is right and who is wrong?

But this, in turn, raises a number of questions: one of them is the fascist 'line' on capitalism and private property. In Hitler's speeches, we find him lauding private enterprise and individual initiative in one speech (before one audience, usually a business audience), and then praising socialism and the German worker the next (before a different audience). Overall, we do find a consistency in Hitler's day-to-day policy - which is, I argue, a 'Left' policy - but from speech to speech, pronouncement to pronouncement, an inconsistency. The same goes for Mussolini. The anti-fascist Left will use Hitler's pronouncements on private enterprise to prove that he was a neoliberal - which is nonsense. But then, the Left has a tendency to go by what a man says, and not what he does. By his actions, Hitler wasn't a neoliberal; his immediate successors, in the post-war Bonn republic, were (Ludwig Erhard is one of the gods in the pantheon of neoliberal-approved politicians). The fact is, in the day-to-day running of the country, or in the contesting of an election, a politician will occasionally contradict himself. Mussolini and Hitler did this to an alarming degree. But the Left does it as well. Many years ago, I stumbled across a quote from Lenin (in the first pages of the anti-communist compilation, Marx Refuted: The Verdict of History (1986), edited by Colin Wilson and Ronald Duncan) from 1917 in which he declares he is 'No longer a Marxist'. One has to consider the context of such an extraordinary statement. But, suffice to say, the Soviets would have obscured such a statement from the historical record: that is, everything written, or said, by Engels, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, was presented in order to give readers a portrait of men who were fully consonant in thought and deed - for every single day of their lives. When, in reality, such a thing is not possible...

But this is not an excuse for inconsistency. On the contrary, a nationalist group should strive for the utmost consistency: its press releases, articles, transcribed or recorded speeches, etc., should be fully consonant with the principles and positions as outlined in the constitution and party program.

All this talk of economics brings us to another point. Would, or should, major nationalisations take place under a Far Right government? Critics of socialism argue that widescale nationalisations 'destroy the economy' and 'reduce the confidence of foreign investors', etc., etc. Communist governments, operating under the constraints of Marxist ideology, view capitalist property relations as 'the exploitation of man by man', and so are bound, by that view, to abolish all property (the USSR, of course, abolished all property except at the local, market garden level). The conservative anti-communists argue that this policy led to economic ruin. But it is possible for a country to do well, in 2012, with a nationalised economy - to a certain extent. The UAE, for instance, doesn't have income, corporate, value-added, capital gains, or sales taxes: the country is about as tax-free as one can get. The UAE's revenue comes from state-owned oil. Oil-rich countries like Iran, with a state-owned oil sector, though, don't do well - possibly, this is because of an extensive corporate, sales and income tax regime, with rates cutting in at low thresholds of income (inflation, brought about by loose monetary policy, in Iran only increases the 'bracket creep' effect, in which Iranians are pushed into higher and higher progressive tax brackets through inflation). The point is, one can envisage, then, a UAE-type arrangement in Australia, in which the mining and resources sector is state-owned, while all taxes are, in effect, abolished.

But one should not be hamstrung to such a policy. One wouldn't think it, but one of the tenets of Marxist-Leninism is that communist leaders should not be bound to an economic policy which has been devised (as I have just done) in abstraction, a priori, separate from existing reality. Marxist-Leninism does justify discretion on the economy. In this regard, it is flexible, fluid, organic... It castigates the 'Left' communists who demand that such-and-such an economic scheme (which was devised a priori) be introduced, as a matter of principle, even if the existing realities don't call for it. This is what the Marxist-Leninists call 'dogmatism'. And it is this 'dogmatism' which is one of the distinguishing traits of Trotskyism and Maoism. (But, it should be said, the line between a mad, 'Left-adventurist' and 'dogmatic' scheme, and a good, proper, socialist one, is thin: how are we to distinguish between, say, Stalin's collectivisation program in the Ukraine, and Mao's crazed, 'adventurist' Great Leap Forward?).

Marxism's organic approach is what separates it from the 'utopian' forms of communism. 'Utopian' communism devises abstract, a priori schemes for social reform, and demands that they be imposed, from the top down, and all at once. Marxism, on the other hand, believes that reality is gradually inclining towards socialism - that's the tendency in the economic and social arrangements of the world today - but these tendencies may end up zig-zagging: that is, there may be a sudden spurt towards socialism, and then a turning away from it... The goal of the Marxist political leadership is to divine the existing tendency and work with it, and not against it.

The essential thing is that there will be struggle between the existing tendencies - the one towards capitalism and away from socialism, and vice versa. Marxism is the metaphysics of struggle.

Nationalists should take this metaphysics on board. Many of them exhibit surprise that there is a struggle, that there is a terrible fight, in politics. Some profess to be bemused by present-day policy on immigration, for example: 'Why doesn't' Romney and the US Republican Party see sense on non-white immigration, and just ban it? But, according to Marxism, there must be a struggle: a fight, a battle, will be necessary. Marxism is a close cousin of Darwinism, of course, and it's not for nothing that Hitler named his memoirs, 'My Struggle'...